G.R. No. 149681; October 15, 2007
RAMMEL MONARES ANILAO alias JOJO, Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rammel Anilao was charged with Frustrated Murder for stabbing Ronald Apud on January 15, 1994. The prosecution alleged that while Apud was on a bicycle, Anilao grabbed its steering wheel and stabbed him in the back. Apud survived after medical treatment. He initially did not know the assailant’s name but later identified him as “Jojo Anilao” when he saw him pass by on a tricycle nine days after the incident. The defense presented a different account, claiming an altercation where a third person named Joe was the one who stabbed Apud.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Anilao, but found the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation not proven. Thus, it downgraded the crime from Frustrated Murder to Frustrated Homicide. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction. Anilao elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for Frustrated Homicide based on the identification made by the victim.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction for Frustrated Homicide, but deleted the award of exemplary damages. The Court upheld the credibility of the victim’s identification. While Apud did not know the petitioner’s name at the time of the stabbing, he positively recognized his face during the attack. His subsequent confirmation of the name from his brother when he saw the petitioner days later did not invalidate this prior visual identification. The Court found this identification credible and consistent, outweighing the petitioner’s denial and alternative narrative.
On the criminal liability, the Court agreed with the lower courts that the crime committed was Frustrated Homicide, not Frustrated Murder. For Frustrated Murder to stand, the qualifying circumstance of treachery must be proven as clearly as the act itself. Here, the prosecution failed to establish how the mode of attack deliberately and consciously ensured the execution without risk to the assailant. The suddenness of the attack alone does not constitute treachery. With no qualifying circumstance proven, the killing (had it been consummated) would be Homicide. Since the victim survived due to timely medical assistance, the proper classification is Frustrated Homicide under Articles 249 and 6(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty and awards for actual and moral damages were sustained, but exemplary damages were deleted due to the absence of any aggravating circumstance.